​Ever since Barack Obama produced his really-real-for-realsies birth certificate--punctuated by that actually quite funny turn at the White House Correspondents' Dinner--the birther movement has lacked focus. Laguna Niguel dentist/attorney/weekly purchaser of entire Costco pallets of mascara Orly Taitz, along with her many birther frenemies, have been looking around for a new, nationally prominent figure of dubious provenance.

But who? It had to be someone aspiring to the presidency or vice-presidency ... foreign-ish ... accent would be a plus ... medium complexion ... last name ends in a vowel....

Hey, what about that Marco Rubio character, the Republican senator from Florida? Did I say from Florida? That's what he wants you to think!

According to the St. Petersburg Times, birther lawyer litigant Charles Kerchner got his hands on the naturalization petitions by Rubio's parents, who had emigrated to Miami from Cuba in 1956. They didn't become citizens until 1975. Now, that doesn't matter here in the real world. Rubio was born in the U.S., and is eligible for the presidency--or, as many in Republican circles had been hoping, the vice-presidency first, and sooner rather than later.

Of course, in the xenophobic whackadoodle realm of Birtherstan, the term natural-born is up for debate. Our own Orly told the St. Pete Times, "We need the court to finally adjudicate this issue, who is a natural-born citizen." Her position is, since his parents weren't citizens, Rubio is ineligible for the presidency.

​All of this is something Rubio would be able to laugh off as easily as Obama has, but the birthers' digging uncovered some facts about Rubio's family history that don't jibe with his public statements about growing up in el exilio in Miami. As writer Michael Miller of our sister paper Miami New Times explains, Rubio's been telling everyone that his parents fled Fidel Castro's evil commie evilness after the dictator came to power, which would have been no earlier than 1959. Rubio's parents actually came in 1956.

Oops. The Washington Post has picked up the story as well, and Rubio has lamely fallen back on an "oral history of my family" excuse. As Miller puts it, "Yeah, right. Any self-respecting cubano sure as hell knows when his or her family arrived in the United States. Heck, most can tell you the exact day."

All of this is incredibly damaging to the future political prospects of this far-right, Tea Party darling and "pro-life warrior."

Meanwhile, at the “Supreme Court Center” of the influential legal research website Justia.com, efforts were underway corrupting at least 25 Supreme Court cases by erasing references to the words "Minor V. Happersett" along with references to other relevant cases on the issue along with the insertion of misleading numerical ciations. And In two documented cases actual text was removed.

Someone was incredibly busy in June 2008 working on an illegal front invisible to the public; searching and altering Supreme Court Cases published at Justia.com which cite the only case in American history - Minor v. Happersett (1875) - to directly construe Article 2 Section 1's natural-born citizen clause in determining a citizenship issue as part of its holding and precedent. In this unanimous decision, the Supreme Court defined a "native or natural-born citizen" as a person born in the US to parents who were citizens; a definition which excludes from eligibility both Barack Obama and John McCain.

“Within our party, we’ve got to be very careful about allowing these people who are the birthers and the 9/11-deniers to get too high a profile and say too much without setting the record straight,” Rove said Wednesday night on Fox News.

“This is the White House strategy,” Rove agreed and then blamed Obama for not quelling the rumors. “The president could come out and say, ‘Here are the documents.’ But they’re happy to have this controversy continue because every moment the conservatives talk about this, they marginalize themselves and diminish themselves in the minds of independent voters.”

For years, the Republicans accused Obama of trying make them look crazy by refusing to release his long form birth certificate. If only he would show the country his long form birth certificate, the conventional Republican wisdom ran, the issue would finally be settled and we could simply move on.A look at the wingnut commentary here shows that, contrary to Republican claims, the issue is not settled. The Republican base is still just as crazy as it was before Rove made his remarks. If the long form birth certificate proves nothing, then why did the Republican base spend years asking "Where's the birth certificate"?

Orly Taitz has failed in every attempt to expose Obama's reported fraudulent online birth certificate and Connecticut SS number. The courts have unanimously decided the public does not have any right to see these records. It all so laughable, just like Inspector Clouseau- except the inspector does win out in the end and detectives sometimes take years to solve a crime. Remember, Harry Markopolos,, the amateur fraud investigator who had been screaming to the SEC for nearly a decade? Had SEC officials listened to him from the beginning, Madoff’s stolen take would not have reached half of the estimated $65 billion that it finally did. Yes, all the experts were wrong about Bernie- nobody ever asked to see just one share of stock and if they had, they would have known he was a fraud. Stooges never ask for proof, they trust a slick liar every time.

Actually we do need to fully adjudicate so-called 'birthright citizenship'. Wong Kim Ark was the last really relevant case, and that involved people in the US legally. Of course Rubio's parents were here legally too, one imagines. Why birthright citizenship should apply to the children of those here illegally, and thus are literally 'outside the jurisdiction' of the US in an important way, is beyond me.

Oops. The Washington Post has picked up the story as well, and Rubio has lamely fallen back on an "oral history of my family" excuse.

Here is a little insight on the Hack that wrote the washington post article

Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing “the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years.” That’s right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a “c**ksucker”, and the Marine punched him.

Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.

Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, “Birthers intent on somehow proving that he’s not a “natural-born citizen” dug up his parents’ adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That’s where WaPo got the dates for his parents’ arrival to the United States.”

That’s right boys and girls. Manuel Roig-Franzia, who was once punched by a 70 year old for atrocious writing in a freaking style section, uses a Birther originated attack to discredit Marco Rubio and can’t even offer up a quote from Rubio.

And you know what? Even if he could offer up a quote, does it matter? How many of you know the full and accurate story of your parents and grandparents?

Here is a portion of rubios response to the WAPOS article and the link... read it!

"The Post story misses the entire point about my family and why their story is relevant. People didn’t vote for me because they thought my parents came in 1961, or 1956, or any other year. Among others things, they voted for me because, as the son of immigrants, I know how special America really is. As the son of exiles, I know how much it hurts to lose your country."

Kissell, it's a cheap shot and you know it too. How could you compare a nut case like Taitz with Tea Party? I hope you don't call yourself a journalist, because it would be a complete misnomer.That tingling in your knee and Mathew's knee will subside after Nov. of '12.

Were you aware that all Supreme Court cases can be accessed at any legal library in the country, as well as at nearly all public university libraries, and from Westlaw and LexisNexis? What exactly would be the the point of altering Supreme Court case at one little web site? It would be like throwing away one copy of a novel, then claiming it no longer existed.

DO NOT...Try to align the base with the birthers... The base of the party is centerright. just as the base of the Dems is center left... Otherwise we can alignyour interests with those of the average San Francisco voter.

Well that makes perfect sense. ALL the judges are corrupt and are therefore thwarting Orly's incomparable legal brillance. Otherwise that dastardly Usurper would have been frog-marched out the White House by now.It will clearly take a revolution by elderly Social Security recipients to set things right.

Uh, actually, there was at least one court that ruled Obama is legal to serve. Please refer to "Ankeny v. Daniels". Here is part of the ruling:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.

"The courts have unanimously decided the public does not have any right to see these records."

yes, the same laws that protect John Smith from seeing Obama's health records also protect John Smith from seeing yours. Why do you want to violate someone's privacy just because he happens to be the POTUS? And the SSA's policies on when a person's SSA record can be made public: After they are dead. That is why today, we know Eisenhower's SS#.

Don't know what you're trying to say in the rest of your post as it has nothng to do with birthers or even Rubio

I mentioned the case above -- but that is from 1898 or something, Wong Kim Ark vs. United States. But it involved *legal* immigrants' children. Modern immigration law is vastly different. Further, Mexico has in a sense claimed jurisdiction over its citizens here by (1) giving out matricula consular cards (2) interfering in state capital crimes cases.

The Jurisdiction issue was put to rest already. I foget which case, but the court said that jurisdiction applies to everyone in the US as long as they are not foreign ambassadors or enemy combatants on US Soil.

since illegal immigrants are neither, they are under the US jurisdiction.

What about the St. Pete Times writer? What's his agenda? And so far, no one is denying that the documents are real.

The birthers are very strange people. That they would target a successful, very conservative Hispanic GOP up-and-comer is ironic, and strengthens the argument that straight-up racism, rather than partisanship, is their major motivation. That they unintentionally revealed documents that appear to show that Rubio has fudged his bio is what you call "news."

Its obvious what the agenda here is. Rubio has already flat out said he wouldnt accept the Veep job if offered. at least this time around, citing that he still has things to accomplish as a Senator. This is just muddying the water for any future attempt.

Bernie Madoff pulled off his investment fraud for about 30 years on the smartest college educated professionals in the US and now Bernie is in jail. Remember this for when Obama's frauds are finally exposed by some ridiculed little people. Just try and find a first person account from Obama where he says his BC released on April 27th is the Real McCoy- he said "others" said it was real, but you will never find Obama going on the record, that his scanned BC is real, nor will his lawyers allow any forensic examination of the purported BC paper copy they spent ten of thousands of dollars flying from Hawaii, when a first class stamp would have done the deed. The hurculean efforts by the judiciary, DOJ, SSA and the state of Hawaii to stifle inspection of original Obama identity documents that have already been made public by Obama should cause the sober person to wonder what is being hidden behind the curtain.

The dude from the St. Petes time is a whack job like the rest of the birthers... My point was you hinged a very large part of your article on the WAPO article which was no less than a Rubio smear piece by a writer with less than honorable intentions in a paper that clearly favors the far left.

Remember this?

The Post was much easier on Barack Obama when a biography by reporter Janny Scott revealed that Obama falsely claimed his mother's insurer tried to deny health care coverage because of a "pre-existing condition."

That's an absolute lie. No Democrats tried to disqualify McCain from the presidency, ever. In fact Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama jointly sponsored a resoulution declaring that McCain was a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.Democrats just don't have the Republican instinct to demonize and lie.

If both parents have to be citizens, how did my grandsons, both born on German soil, one parent U. S. citizen the other German, get U. S. Passports? Your comment is typical of the many from folks who don't understand the laws pertaining to citizenship.

No matter WHERE Obama II was born, per his OWN ADMISSION, he is ABSOLUTELY NOT A "natural born Citizen".....From Obama II's OWN website, "Fight the Smears" : '“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children....". READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN! The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the ONLY meet and proper definition of "n.b.C." is - "A CHILD BORN ON UNITED STATES SOIL TO TWO (PLURAL, BOTH MOTHER and FATHER) U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS". Since Obama I was NEVER a U.S. Citizen (he was merely a temporary sojourner who was in this nation courtesy of a temporary student visa), NO MATTER WHERE OBAMA II WAS BORN HE IS NOT and CANNOT EVER BECOME A "natural born Citizen", You stinking illiterate Obots know NOTHING WHATSOEVER regarding United States law OR the legal effects of United States Supreme Court rulings. OBAMA II IS NOT LEGAL TO SERVE AND THE LIES HE TELLS CANNOT MAKE HIM QUALIFIED, YOU COMPLETELY ILLITERATE LIBERAL FOOLS !!!

The State of Hawaii has confirmed, repeatedly, that President Obama was born in the state. That is good enough for any court in the nation. There continues to be absolutely no evidence of fraud outside the fevered imaginations of the birthers. Birthers fail, they have always failed, and they will continue to fail, miserably.

The 1,610-word Rubio story was on the front page, and the headline clearly implies Rubio is guilty of wrongdoing: "Marco Rubio’s compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show." The Post's 486-word report on Obama's mother's health insurance was on page A-06 on July 15, with the headline: "Obama’s mother had health insurance, according to biography."Why is it news that Obama's mom had health insurance? Oh, right: To help win a presidential election and pass his health care overhaul, Obama claimed that his mother's insurer tried to not pay for her cancer treatments by claiming her cancer was a "pre-existing condition." In fact, her insurer covered all medical treatments but denied her coverage for a "disability insurance policy" because that policy was picked up after she was diagnosed with cancer. (But no need to indicate in the headline that Obama fibbed.)The Post paraphrased Obama's inaccurate tale but failed to provide a single quotation from Barack Obama actually saying his mother's insurer tried to deny coverage of her "medical bills." At the top of his July 11 Washington Examiner column, Byron York cited three instances in which Obama specifically claimed his mother's insurer tried to deny coverage of her "medical bills."As York pointed out, the biography revealed that Barack Obama served as his mother's attorney when dealing with her insurer. That detail--which the Post didn't include in its report--shows that Obama clearly knew the story he told was embellished for political gain. There is no indication that Rubio has embellished his parents' story.So which of these stories deserved to be on the front page of the Washington Post?